Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:29:29.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Source Material for the Karagkiozis Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Linda Suny Myrsiades
Linda Suny Myrsiades
Affiliation:
Linda Myrsiades isAssistant Professor of Communication atWidener University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Karagkiozis, or Greek shadow puppet theatre, is a theatrical form that reflects nineteenth-century Greek oral culture. It utilizes a variety of national and regional costumes, dialects, and manners. Having developed in Greece during the period of that nation's modern history, it expresses the continuity of Greek culture and carries its themes, scenes of daily life, and characters. It retains, moreover, vestiges, or perhaps more accurately resurgences, of the pagan as well as the Christian past. Folk characters and types from folk plays and tales – the quack doctor, old man, old woman, devil Jew, Vlach, Moor, Gypsy, swaggering soldier, old rustic, jesting servant, trickster, parasite, stuttering child, ogre, dragon, bald-chin, and the great beauty – are its types as well. Popular folk dances, regional songs, and heroic poetry and ballads appear throughout Karagkiozis performances.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1985 , pp. 213 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. On the history of Turkish Karagoz see Siyavusgil, Sabri Esat, Karagoz (Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimovi, 1951)Google Scholar; Metin, And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey (Ankara: Forum Yayinlari, 1963)Google Scholar; And, Karagoz (Ankara: Dost Yayinlari, 1975)Google Scholar; Basgoz, Ilhan, ‘Earlier References to Koukla and Karagoz’, Turcica (1972), pp. 9–21Google Scholar; Bombaci, Alessio, ‘On Ancient Turkish Dramatic Performances’, Aspects of Altaic Civilization (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1963), XXIII, 87–117Google Scholar; Halman, Talat Sail, ‘Comic Spirit in the Turkish Theatre’, The Theatre Annual, 31 (1975), pp. 16–42Google Scholar; Landau, Jacob, Studies in Arab Theatre and Cinema (Phila.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Martinovitch, Nicholas M., The Turkish Theatre (New York: Theatre Arts, Inc., 1933)Google Scholar; Sevengil, Refik Ahmet, Sur l'ancienneté de l'art dramatique turc (Istanbul: Direction Generale de la Presse, 1949).Google Scholar

2. General Order No. 85, 31 December 1836, as quoted by Fotiadhis, Athanasios, Karagkiozis o prosfyghas (Athens: Gutenberg, 1977), pp. 330–2.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p. 331.

4. Athinas, 4 01 1854Google Scholar, in Biris, Kostas I., ‘O Karagkiozis: Elliniko Laiko theatro’, Nea Estia, 52 (1952), p. 1069Google Scholar; see also Fotiadhis, , p. 332.Google Scholar

5. Athinas, 8 02 1854Google Scholar, in Biris, , p. 1069Google Scholar; see also Fotiadhis, , p. 332.Google Scholar

6. As Emmanuel Zakhos-Papazahariou points out in ‘Les Origines et survivances ottomanes au sein du théâtre d'ombres grec’, Turcica, 5 (1975), p. 38Google Scholar, twentieth-century Greek commentators were to attempt to revive the link between Aristophanes and Karagkiozis as a means of justifying the freedoms taken by the latter. Paradoxically, Turkish purists blamed the Byzantine influence for the obscenity and phallophoric attributes of Karagoz.

7. Yior-ghos, , ‘Kalamatianes ikones: Karagkiozitis’, Fare, No. 56, 14 07 1896Google Scholar, as quoted by Kokkinis, Spyros, Antikaragkiozis (Athens: Iridhos, 1975), p. 12.Google Scholar

8. Estia, 26 07 1894Google Scholar, as quoted by Fotiadhis, , p. 336.Google Scholar

9. Yeniki Efimeridha, 17 12 1827Google Scholar, as quoted by Fotiadhis, , p. 73.Google Scholar

10. Mauromihalis, , Ellinika Symmikta, I, 47Google Scholar, as quoted by Fotiadhis, , p. 73.Google Scholar

11. Theatis, 20 07 1837Google Scholar, as quoted by Laskaris, N. I., Istoria tou neoellinikou theatrou (Athens: M. Vasilios and Sons, 1938), I, 139.Google Scholar See also: Ampère, J. J., La Grèce (Paris, 1848)Google Scholar, as quoted by Fotiadhis, , p. 206Google Scholar; Ubicini, A., La Turquie actuelle (Paris: Hachette, 1855), p. 317Google Scholar; de Pouque-ville, François C. H. L., Voyage en Marée, à Constantinople, en Albanie, et dans plusieurs autres parties de l'empire othoman, pendant les années 1798, 1799, 1800 et 1801 (Paris: Gabon, 1805), II, 135.Google Scholar The distinction between Karagkiozis and Aristophanes drawn by this Greek source is not shared by such viewers of the Turkish performance as Ampère in 1844 and Ubicini in 1855 who found Karagoz and Aristophanes had much in common. Ampère, in fact, finds that nothing gives a better idea of ancient comedy than the shameless words and the licentious and motley satire of the scandalously jeering Karagoz. Pouqueville expressed his position in his 1802 description of a Karagoz performance in Constantinople: ‘Je n'ai pas trouvé les règles d'Aristote plus respectées que les moeurs’. That the Greek source chose to ignore the more likely similarities and to stress what, to other spectators of the period, were less apparent differences between this modern performance and Aristophanes could be taken as a sign of the anti-populist and anti-oriental prejudice of literate Greeks of the period.

12. Hobhouse, John C., A Journey Through Albania and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constantinople, During the Tears 1809 and 1810 (Phila.: M. Carey and Son, 1817), I, 159–60.Google Scholar

13. Estia, 1 08 1894Google Scholar, as quoted by Fotiadhis, , p. 336.Google Scholar

14. Estia, 7 08 1901Google Scholar, as quoted in Hatzipantazis, Thodhoros, ‘I Eisvoli tou Karagkiozi stin Ath-ina tou 1890’, 0 Politis, No. 49 (1982), p. 87.Google Scholar

15. de Amicis, Edmondo, Constantinople, trans. Tilton, Caroline, 4th ed. (1878; rpt. New York: G. P. Putman, Sons, 1882), p. 139.Google Scholar

16. Thalasso, Adolphe, ‘Molière en Turquie: Étude sur le théâtre de Karagueuz’, Le Molièriste, NS I (1887), pp. 262–3.Google Scholar

17. Flaubert, Gustave, Voyage en Orient: Égypte, Palestine, Asie Mineure, Constantinople, Grèce, Italie (1849–1851). Constantine, Tunis et Carthage (1858) (Paris: Société les Belles Lettres, 1948), II, 552.Google Scholar

18. Michaud, M. and Poujoulet, M., Correspondence d'Orient: 1830–1831 (Paris: Ducollet, 1833), p. 197.Google Scholar

19. Slade, Adolphus, Records of Travels in Turkey, Greece, etc, and of a Cruise in the Black Sea with the Captain Pasha in the Tears 1829, 1830 and 1831 (Phila.: E. L. Carey, 1833), I, 100.Google Scholar

20. Ubicini, , pp. 317–18.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 317.

22. Mery, Joseph Pierre Agnes, Constantinople el à Mer Noire (Paris, 1855) p. 358Google Scholar; see And, Karagoz, p. 68.Google Scholar

23. Fare, 9 06 1896, p. 2Google Scholar, in Kokkinis, , footnote n, p. 15.Google Scholar See, on nineteenth-century theatre in Greece, Myrsiades, Linda S., ‘The Struggle for Greek Theatre in Post-Liberation Greece’, Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, 7 (1980), pp. 33–51.Google Scholar

24. Fare, 23 06 1896, p. 3Google Scholar, in Kokkinis, , footnote 11, p. 16.Google Scholar

25. Filaretos, , Euvia, 1 11 1879, p. 4Google Scholar, in Kokkinis, , p. 6.Google Scholar

26. Ibid., p. 7.

27. Fotiadhis, , p. 91.Google Scholar

28. The mixing of upper and lower class patrons in the Karagkiozis audience clearly disturbed those with cultural pretensions. Karagkiozis' rival, the Fasoulis and Periklitos performance (similar to Punch and Judy), did not, however, face the same degree of enmity with which the ‘Turkish screen’ was greeted. Having appeared on the Greek stage sometime before 1870, Fasoulis was introduced into Athens, the author Bambis Anninos reports, a few years before 1888 by an itinerant promoter from Kerkyra. Fasoulis was, unlike Karagkiozis, more completely a lower-class entertainment. When, for example, a summer theatre, expensively fitted to draw the public in 1870, was suddenly converted to a Fasoulis performance and its audience became so mixed that the ‘kids couldn't be separated from the sheep’, as Tsokopoulos reports, the common class simply drove out the upper classes to leave an audience exclusively of ‘friends of secular theatre’. It is true that one author in 1890 (see Fotiadhis, p. 91) linked the Fasoulis show to Karagkiozis when prohibitions were raised against ‘theatridhia’, and that Estia, 26 07 1894Google Scholar (see, as quoted in Fotiadhis, p. 336) refers to officials forbidding a Fasoulis performance to avoid complaints of favouritism when a Karagkiozis performance is forced to close. But, as Anninos makes clear, in the popular mind the two bore no relation to each other on one point: in spite of having cleared the way for such a performance as Fasoulis, Karagkiozis was clearly recognized as Ottoman in its origins, while Fasoulis was known as born of the Neapolitan Pulchinello. For a comparison of Karagkiozis to other theatrical entertainments in the late nineteenth century – as well as for a useful extension of this paper to the end of the nineteenth century – see Hatzipantazis, , p. 69 ff.Google Scholar

29. Kokkinis, , pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

30. See Pampoukis, I. T., ‘I Tourkokratia ke to ikosiena sto repertorio tou theatrou skion’, Parnas-sos, I, No. 2 (1968), pp. 241–5Google Scholar; Biris, Kostas I., ‘I Leventia tisRoumelis: To Elliniko laiko theatro’, Nea Estia, 61 (1957), pp. 661–8Google Scholar; Zakhos-Papazahariou, , pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

31. Vasiliadhis, N. I., ‘To Tourkikon theatron o Karagkiozis’, Imerologhion Skokou (1895), p. 99Google Scholar, as it appears in ‘Eikones Konstantinopoleos ke Athinon’, Estia (1910)Google Scholar, as quoted by Fotiadhis, , p. 194.Google Scholar

32. See Giulio Caimi whose interviews with players form the basis of his work Karaghiozi ou la com-édie grecque dans l'âme du théâtre d'ombres (Athens: Hellenikes Technes, 1935)Google Scholar; subsequent publications by players themselves include Spathars, Sotiris, Apomnimoneumata ke i tehni tou Karagkiozi (Athens: Perg-hamos, 1960)Google Scholar; Mihopoulos, Panayiotis, ‘O Karagkiozis arghopetheni’, Rizospastis, 30 11 1974Google Scholar; Haridhimos, Hristos, ‘Ezisa me ton Karagkiozi’, Theatro, No. 10 (07–08. 1963), pp. 55–8Google Scholar; Mollas, Antonios, ‘O Karagkiozis’, To Vima, 4 01 1949Google Scholar; Mollas, , ‘Isaghoghi’, I Istoria ke i tehni tou Karagkiozi, by Caimi, Giulio (Athens: Kyklos, 1937)Google Scholar; Mollas, , ‘O Karagkiozis’, Theatro, No. 10 (07–08 1963), p. 62.Google Scholar For autobiographical tapes collected from twenty-one players in 1969, see the Milman Parry Collection, Center for the Study of Oral Literature, Harvard University. Fotiadhis has included materials from interviews in his 0 Karagkiozis, pp. 211–62.Google Scholar See also, Vernardhos, Sokratis, Me ion Sotiri Spathari (Athens: Rodhaki, 1975)Google Scholar; Spiliadhis, Veatrikis, ‘O Mihopoulos mila yia tin tehni tou’, Epi-theorisi Tehnis, 22, No. 128 (08 1965), pp. 94–7.Google Scholar

33. Yior-ghos, , in Kokkinis, , p. 11.Google Scholar